• bamfic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is 100% how the Nazis got into power too. Hitler made all kinds of deals with the center-right, military, conservatives, and Hindenburg himself, by promising to be a bulwark against communism, unions, and the left in general. We all know how that movie ended.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ended? You mean fled to Argentina, paperclipped to America and stayed quiet for a few decades before getting louder… And Louder… AND LOUDER… AND LOUDER!!!

    • lugal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The context given in the title: France had an election and the left union is the biggest group but still doesn’t have a majority. The president is a liberal and seems to favor the Right over the Left

      • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Would you be able to explain the difference between “left” and “liberal” in this context?

        • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          61
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m not the same person, but I’ll give it a go. It’s confusing in part because liberal often means leftish leaning in the US but not elsewhere.

          For example Democrat and liberal are pretty much interchangeable in US political discourse, but that’s not what the word means. Liberalism is more of an economic strategy. In this sense Democrats and Republicans are both liberals. They are all conservative liberals. Does that sound like a contradiction? Only in modern US politics. One party is just more conservative socially and more economically liberal.

          Left or Leftist is generally in conflict with liberal ideology, as a leftist believes in strong social safety nets like universal healthcare, universal basic income, etc. Depending on the type of leftist, this could mean things like a planned economy, workers owning the means of production, or even collectivist anarchy. Examples of leftists are Socialists and Communists.

          This is why, to a leftist, it’s so damn funny when a republican calls a democrat a radical leftist. No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.

          Sorry for all the US centric shit on a thread about France but I think that’s where the confusion usually comes from.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re saying the party socializing healthcare is ideologically opposed to people who want socialized healthcare…?

            • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              He is saying:

              Left is Bernie Sanders

              the democrats are the center (leaning right)

              the republican are the right.

              From the rest of the world point of view: US politics is center right VS extreme right.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                The large majority of democrats want progressive reform, so that’s just wrong. There is a reason Bernie only caucuses with the Democrats.

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The large majority of Democratic voters absolutely do. However the large majority of Democratic donors do not and are at odds with the voter base of the Democratic party.

          • wanderer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            2 months ago

            No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.

            That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.

            • Kichae@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              In most countries you need to be a party member to engage in internal party politics. The idea that the heneral public makes direct choices for private political organizations is, honestly, kind of weird.

              But also, which states require you to be an actual card-carrying member to participate in the primary? I was under the impression that most merely required that you register with the electoral office as a party supporter.

              Being a “registered X” is very different from being “a member of X”. Members get to do things like go to convemtions where party policy is discussed and voted on. Members get to vie for party nomination. They’re part of the internal machinery of the party.

              Yhey’re not just voters with a party banner.

              • wanderer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                OK, if you want to look at it that way, it’s still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.

            • squid_slime@lemm.eeM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              if someone doesn’t agree with either party why should they vote? when someone refuses to vote for your party they are simple refusing, this does not mean they are voting for the other side. i really dislike this conflation people make.

              here’s a fun thought experiment. democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?

              • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                Stop thinking about it like you need to vote for someone to represent your views because that’s NEVER how it worked. It’s a tug of war, everytime you don’t vote you’re letting your side down.

                Just because not everyone pulling with you agrees on where to stop pulling doesn’t mean you get to drop the rope.

        • Match!!@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          liberalism is a belief in free association / marketplace of ideas and is centrist on a global scale. the usa is generally right-leaning so the two major parties are the liberals (centrists) and the right wing

        • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          The use of “liberal” has been taken by the right, from the neo-liberal they started with. Now they consider themselves the true liberals. It’s the good ole 1984 newspeak strategy of taking the words out of their original meaning to make them lose their meaning, and their ideas behind.

        • Dampyr 🇺🇦 🇵🇸@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think that he is referring to “liberal” more in the sense of being in the political spectrum of economic liberal. Usually I see the difference between the US and EU definition of the term liberal: in the US it is a synonym of the left wing party or leaning, in EU is used for being liberal economic leaning and is different from being left party or left wing

  • Beaver@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Macron is being corrupt by working with the worst of French society.

  • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did I miss something in France? Last i checked the center and left-leaning parties formed an alliance to keep the right wing out of power.

  • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    All the left seems able to do is call everyone else a fascist and tell them they’re all awful for not agreeing with their ideological purity obsessions.

    We need to actually appeal to people sometimes, actually talk about difficult subjects that affect people rather than just aay they’re horrible for not putting ideology above all else.

    A few positive ideas that actually make people think it’ll be better for them if the left is in power

    • squid_slime@lemm.eeM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      many parties are active in this, the party i am a member of are having a push towards “fight bosses not migrants” we do need unity of the working class and calling working class people fascists will only push them deeper into their corners.
      the other day i spoke to someone about politics, he complained of housing prices, stagnating wages then exclaimed “its socialism” bottom line: he isn’t a fascist but where he gets his information from is fascist.

    • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      We need to actually appeal to people sometimes, actually talk about difficult subjects that affect people

      One side wants to talk about housing, public pensions, public healthcare, public education, salaries, discrimination against women and minorities, and work/life balance.

      The other side wants to talk about immigrants being bad and evil, and about how trans people in films are turning their children gay

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Horseshoe theory isn’t real, Hitler and his fascists had to actively pretend to be Socialists to get votes - that’s not “horseshoe theory” it’s fascists actively lying.

      Fascism defends corporations, capitalism, and the wealthy. It’s “Capitalism’s immune system”. Hence it requires deception.

      Socialism defends the workers and community, It’s the Poor’s, working class, and underprivileged’s immune system… Then only in later or it’s own abusive, incomplete, or corrupted forms can it be weilded as the party/Authoritarian’s immune system. Only when it becomes a state based fascism is horseshoe theory credible.

      It’s the lack of democracy that is the difference. Democratic systems favour the majority, only when they fail is fascism produced. Nothing to do with Socialism (which requires a form of democracy where the proletariat majority is supposed to dictate what is to be done).

      “Elite Panic” is an example of this. The wealthy minority are the status quo, the community is the rest of is.

      It’s when that majority ceases to get a say that socialism is dissolved and a state authoritarianism can take over. But under honest analysis, that’s a new elite having taken over, NOT Socialism. It’s Socialism in name only, state fascism or authoritarianism in actuality.

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh fuck off lmao. This post explicitly said France and your immediate response is to pretend that the internet belongs to Americans. Get a grip.

      …and maybe consider pressuring your party to consider its own policy of pandering to fascism (Kamala was at AIPAC the other day, despite their known election interference in support of Israel).

      Not everything is a Trump conspiracy - mf couldn’t even hide his ear for long enough to make it obvious that he was vastly overreacting about how much damage the bullet did.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is a leftist community, if you don’t like it join some “progressive” Liberal community where they’re so focused on “harm reduction” that genocide becomes an acceptable tradeoff